unified_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'intelligent ranking and filtering' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic search functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with no annotations, this represents a moderate gap in behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose and key features. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main functionality. Every word earns its place - 'Search across all D&D content types' establishes the core purpose, the parenthetical list provides concrete examples, and 'with intelligent ranking and filtering' adds valuable context about the search behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, search functionality across multiple content types) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it clearly states what the tool does, it doesn't provide information about return format, error conditions, or result structure. For a unified search tool with no output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what results look like and how they're organized.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'filtering' which relates to the content_types parameter, but this is already covered in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search across all D&D content types' with specific examples (spells, monsters, items, etc.) and mentions 'intelligent ranking and filtering'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_spells, search_monsters, etc. by being a unified search across all content types rather than searching specific types individually.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching across multiple D&D content types. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context strongly implies this is for broad searches while sibling tools like search_spells are for specific content type searches. The description doesn't provide explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.